Finite‐Element Calculations on Alliant FX/80
Publication: Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 4
Abstract
The finite‐element method has proven to be an invaluable tool for analysis and design of complex, high‐performance systems, such as those typically encountered in the aerospace or automotive industries. However, as the size of the finite‐element models of such systems increases, analysis computation time using conventional computers can become prohibitively high. Parallel processing computers provide the means to overcome these computation‐time limits, provided the algorithms used in the analysis can take advantage of multiple processors. The writers have examined several algorithms for linear and nonlinear static analysis, as well as dynamic finite‐element analysis. The performance of these algorithms on an Alliant FX/80 parallel supercomputer has been investigated. For single load‐case linear static analysis, the optimal solution algorithm is strongly problem dependent. For multiple load cases or nonlinear static analysis through a modified Newton‐Raphson method, decomposition algorithms are shown to have a decided advantage over element‐by‐element preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithms. For eigenvalue/eigenvector analysis, the subspace iteration algorithm with a parallel decomposition is shown to achieve a relatively high parallel efficiency.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Argyris, J. et al. (1985). “Τα Παντα Ρει.” Comp. Methods in Appl. Mech. and Engrg., Vol. 51, 289–365.
2.
August, R., and Kaza, K. V. R. (1988). “Vibration, performance, flutter, and forced response characteristics of a large‐scale propfan and its aeroelastic model.” NASA Tech. Memo. 101322, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
3.
Bathe, K. J., and Wilson, E. L. (1976). Numerical methods in finite element analysis. Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 256–258.
4.
Haftka, R. T., and Kamat, M. P. (1989). “Simultaneous nonlinear structural analysis and design.” Computational Mech., Vol. 4, 409–416.
5.
Hestenes, M. R. (1980). Conjugate direction methods in optimization. Springer‐Verlag, New York, N.Y., 116–125.
6.
Hughes, T. J. R. (1987). The finite element method—linear static & dynamic FE analysis. Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 483–489.
7.
Kamat, M. P., and Watson, B. C. (1992). “SAPNEW: parallel finite element code for thin shell structures on the Alliant FX/80.” NASA Contractor Rep. 189212, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
8.
King, R. B., and Sonnad, V. (1987). “Implementation of an element‐by‐element solution algorithm for the finite element method on a coarse‐grained parallel computer.” Comp. Methods in Appl. Mech. and Engrg., Vol. 61, 47–59.
9.
Law, K. H. (1986). “Parallel finite element solution method.” Comp. & Struct., 23(6), 845–858.
10.
Mehmed, O., Kaza, K. V. R., Lubomski, J. F., and Kielb, R. E. (1982). “Bending‐torsion flutter of a highly swept advanced turboprop.” NASA Tech. Memo. 82975, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
11.
Poole, E., and Ortega, J. M. (1984). “Incomplete Cholesky conjugate gradient method on the CYBER 203/205.” Proc., Symp. on Supercomputing Applications, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., 101–111.
12.
Saad, Y., and Schultz, M. H. (1986). GMRES: a generalized residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems.” SIAM J. Scientific and Statistical Computing, Vol. 7, 417–424.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Volume 7 • Issue 4 • October 1994
Pages: 446 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 20, 1992
Published online: Oct 1, 1994
Published in print: Oct 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.